The Voyage that Shook the Historians
In June, I interviewed the historian of evolution Peter Bowler, who claimed that he, and other academic historians, were duped into appearing in a Creationist film about the life of Darwin. Peter Bowler, Janet Browne, Sandra Herbert also claim that their views on Darwin were misrepresented through editing in the film, The Voyage That Shook the World. Subsequently, they co-authored a letter about the affair to the . They wrote: "The overall impression is given that Darwin had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions."
The US , which describes itself as "defending the teaching of evolution in public schools", has covered the controversy, inlcuding Peter Bowler's comments on Sunday Sequence, .
Now, the Creation Minsitries International, the organisation behind The Voyage That Shook the World, conducted with the three historians. They in the presentation of the historians' comments. CMI add the following coda to their account of this curious episode:
"It was not altogether unanticipated that at least some of the many evolutionist authorities interviewed for the documentary (and there may be more to come) would feel the need for some form of public "dissociation", once they became fully aware of the documentary's creationist connections. Though we understand the risk to academic careers and reputations, we're naturally disappointed when claims are made that do not seem to be sustainable from the transcripts of the entire raw footage. And we are surprised, too, given the generally mild and respectful tone of their article in other respects, as well as the very cordial interaction during the interview process, which Director Steve Murray commented on more than once to us. We are hopeful that it will turn out to have been a case of not having checked the raw footage sent to them, instead relying on memory. We would be delighted to publish news of a retraction of either or both of these two claims in this space, should that occur."
Comment number 1.
At 12th Aug 2009, David Booth wrote:Why publish transcipts, when they could make the audio freely available? Something is rotten in the house of creation.com if you ask me.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 13th Aug 2009, Heliopolitan wrote:Geneboy, I think it's pretty likely to be their cortexes. Like Peter Morrow, I'm a bit peeved at the moderation policies being attached to this blog - Will puts up an article about creationist knuckle-draggers, and some punter in a ±«Óãtv office decides that when they are called out as such, it is a post-removable offence?
Yes, I know some people in NI are still in the pre-scientific era, and they think that the streams of garbage that flow from the charlatans of the creation industry are markers of their True Holiness. But for goodness sake - the ±«Óãtv is supposed to have an educational component. Dragging this "debate" out over and over again is NOT educating these people about the facts of science. Instead, they are getting continual exposure to nutcases, in the name of "balanced" journalism.
Perhaps the ±«Óãtv should give as much time to David Irving's holocaust denial as they do to the creationists' science denial? That is the direct moral equivalent. Time to come off the fence. There is no accommodation between creationism and science; creationism persists in our society because of scientific illiteracy, and that is a PROBLEM. Whatever happened to science editors? Why, when science is being discussed, do the ±«Óãtv dig up these pathetic "philosophers of science" rather than *scientists*?
[rant over :-)]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Aug 2009, princessnewsjunkie wrote:15 answers to creationist nonsence.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)